Everyone should be able to watch Test cricket on TV

A test match at what used to be the height of summer - in this case between a rehabilitated England team and the tantalisingly fragile genius of India - was once a sure-bet marquee event.

But the current series is in danger of disappearing down a storm-water drain. It is being drowned by the weather and the already indecently early arrival of football on the front and back pages. If you want to watch it, it will cost you in the region of £40 a month for a television subscription, and you will have to shell out for all the paraphernalia that goes with modern TV-watching.

How different it was two proper summers ago. The nation was stuck in front of the television (after a one-off payment of the TV licence, free and available to all), packed inside The Oval and along the roofs of terraces around the ground, as England ground out a tense draw to secure the return of the Ashes after 16 years. It was an incomparably unifying moment.

That season, English cricket hit heights of popularity it had not known since the Ashes series of 1981. Peak viewing figures went over eight million. Pubs and clubs buzzed with the deeds of Flintoff and company and there seemed every reason to believe cricket was about to reclaim its rightful place as 'the summer game'.

It is incomprehensible, therefore, that, even though the decision was taken earlier, the ECB had not seen the game's profile rising. Instead the England and Wales Cricket Board chose the greater money of Sky over Channel 4's half-hearted bid, while the BBC, in the middle of a confusing interregnum and constricted by budget restraints, didn't even get to the starting line. Channel 5 picked up the highlight titbits. The moment had gone.

Sky, as everyone agrees, have done a wonderful job. Their camera angles, gadgets, commentary and commitment are superb. But the game's reach is no longer universal.

David Brook has a unique perspective, as he was the director of strategy at Channel 4, whose coverage was seen as innovative - and accessible. He claims viewing figures have dropped a staggering 85 per cent.

'Despite Sky's best efforts,' he says, 'Test cricket is now quite low in the public consciousness and that is because of the lack of live free-to-air coverage. Giles Clarke was the architect of the last deal and went for maximum cash, without considering the impact of reduced exposure. Mike Soper said on Radio 4 on Wednesday that he would like to see the next deal take into account some live free-to-air coverage.'

Clarke, of Somerset, and Soper, of Surrey, are the candidates to replace David Morgan, who nodded through the Sky deal as ECB chairman, and is now off to run the International Cricket Council. A man of few words and a questionable view of the wider picture, he will be missed by only his closest admirers.

Brook, incidentally, was sounded out by former ECB executives to run for Morgan's job but didn't believe he could crack the inner sanctum of support that resides in the 18 counties - so the choice is a simple one.

Who runs cricket is normally of little interest to most supporters. They are more concerned with picking out a Flintstones outfit to wear to the Tests on Saturday, or where to get the money from for the next winter jaunt with the Barmy Army. But who becomes chairman when the counties get their ballot papers next month should matter to everyone. Whoever wins will decide if cricket is to remain the preserve of the hardcore fanatics, subbed-up satellite addicts and rich county patrons or is spread across a much wider constituency, one that, only two years ago, was aching for it.

The consensus view is that Soper is pushing harder for a return to terrestrial television when the contract with Sky expires in 2010. And if it is Clarke? Well, he might not be as inflexible as some people think. There is much lobbying to be done and the BBC have already expressed early interest. The word is the door is there to be pushed.

Sky, of course, do not agree cricket's profile has suffered as much as critics say. They point to the pub-club audience that is impossible to monitor. They cite their commitment to the county game, and their continued coverage of England overseas.

And last week they produced an intriguing snippet to challenge the widely held perception that subscription TV is killing the game: Monty Panesar, whose celebrity cuts across all boundaries, has played all of his Test cricket on Sky Sports.

There is no doubting Monty's profile. He's a bona fide national hero. But Monty is unique. He is the first Sikh to play for England. He is quirky in his own right. And he is very, very good. He would be a considerable presence in any era, no matter the TV coverage.

Some people will say it doesn't matter who televises cricket; grounds are full, despite the lousy weather, England are doing well again (although making hard work of it at Trent Bridge) and Sky is in eight million homes. It is not that simple, according to Brook.

'The minimum entry cost to watch cricket on Sky is about £400 a year. A lot of people can't afford that. There are homes that have Sky where the parents might not be interested enough in sport to subscribe to pay-TV, so their children miss out. The highlights, surely, should have gone to the BBC, in a Match of the Day-type package.'

If the BBC do return, they might have reason to thank a Yorkshireman for his efforts.

'A Select Committee has already said it will look again, by the autumn of 2008, at the issue of [home Test] cricket being returned to the protected list,' says Brook. 'But a new TV deal might be decided before then. John Grogan [Labour MP for Selby and a member of Yorkshire County Cricket Club] has put down an Early Day Motion for September to request that the review is brought forward. The ECB should see sense and go for a mix of free-to-air and pay-TV of their own volition.'

As always in cricket, timing is everything. The ECB and the BBC have already shown theirs was way off two years ago. They have little time left in which to work on their old partnership.